liquor licenses. by definition, limited restaurants can't have full liquor license so this is contradictory. it doesn't need to be there and is confusing so we are recommending you have it stricken out. the that concludes my presentation, thanks. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> i have a few questions for aaron probably. okay. so the report says that the limited restaurant is one that is not permited to have on-site alcohol consumption. >> correct. >> which includes beer and wine. >> correct. >> so that would require a cu by this legislation. >> correct. >> in case of the other restaurants that is a 47 or 49, which i think is probably some are beer and wine and the other is all kinds of alcohol, if i'm not mistaken. >> 47 is for beer and wine

and liquor, 49 is seasonal. >> i forget if it is just beer and wine, forget the number. >> 41 is just beer and wine. >> yeah, 41 just beer and wine. these would be different types of full liquor license would be prohibited but you can obtain someone else's in the district or citywide. >> only in the district. so if another restaurant went out of business and sold it they could transfer that to another in the district. the idea is to keep the same number of them that are already there. >> okay. i guess my question is -- that i always thought when you wanted to get a liquor license that you had -- in terms of abc you had to obtain one in existence but they do issue new ones now? >> they may. i'm not entirely sure but you can pull them from different parts of the city as well, so this would limit it. >> so the key difference here is the restriction is

that you have to obtain one from a restaurant that is in the district as opposed to getting the liquor license from somewhere else in the city. i think in almost all cases you have to acquire one that is already in existence unless -- i'm not familiar with the changes of the rules. that is the way it used to be. i guess the intent is the supervisor wants to keep a cap on number of establishments that are providing particularly full-service liquor service. >> yes, that is the intent. >> okay, sure. thank you. >> no problem. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. i guess i'm annoyed by the process. we spend a lot of time on this, the board of supervisors spend a lot of time on this. now all of a sudden we are getting amendments. how many of these do you think will come back from various districts and various ncds. you have any idea? >> i haven't heard of any. this is one -- the first part was inadvertently. we did go through the specific targeted controls in the neighborhood

districts and tried to adopt new policies, new definitions to this and missed this one. just didn't understand the consequences of it. >> i guess i don't like the word inadvertent because i didn't vote on this with an inadvertent thought. it was in front of us, we understood what it meant and would apply to all ncds in the city. if we -- we didn't get individual testimony from ncds, i don't think, maybe we did, about restricting, you know, their own individual areas. so the whole intent of the ordinance seemed to be to drive toward less conditional uses, more liberalization, or whatever, to apply to the city. now we will get bunchs of ncds saying, oh, we didn't think of that and want to reinstate the old controls. if we want to reinstate old controls, why did we pass this? the first place? >> when i say inadvertently, that was the department didn't include in the legislation, before

the commission. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a clarification on commissioner antonini's point. right now, or before this legislation, sorry, there were -- new bars were banned -- >> correct. >> unless you acquired a liquor license. that is not changing. you are trying to rollover the rules. >> right. new bars are banned. but the way the old legislation worked is a restaurant couldn't get a full liquor license because bars were banned. correct. >> now we change the definition, which actually i think was changed after the commission voted on it to allow restaurants to attain full liquor license so long as they operated as a bona fide eating establishment, consistent with the abc's definition, so we tried to align with abc. approximate f the goal is

keep things consistent with union street before this *. >> correct. >> i'm generally not a fan of banning bars. i would rather cu, if neighbors are concerned. but given the fact this ban was in existence -- >> bars were banned, still banned, new bars, but this is for restaurants with a full liquor license. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to partially agree with commissioner sugaya. on the other hand i believe the process is good. if we discover something needs further refine. and you are calling it trailing legislation i'm in full support. these are complicated. it is difficult to have the full game board in front of you when you create new legislation. this is just really reminding us that the neighborhood commercial district rules basically trump the larger ideas of how we want to globally

change legislation. >> commissioner antonini. >> maybe i could ask a question for ms. stephanie about intent on this legislation. i guess my only concern with this type of thing -- first of all i'm supportive, but there are different qualities of establishments and sometimes an establishment comes in and does a very good job of monitoring, you know, the consumption of alcohol and, you know, pretty upscale. there's not the concerns that surround this, whereas the existing ones are allowed to exist even if they are a problem sometimes. that is the only thing. not to specify specific places, but something like desame, a spruce group. i think generally there aren't too many problems with people milling around and causing too many disturbances. i'm wondering the thinking in regards to this.

does there seem to be a big neighborhood push to stopped a decisional restaurants with bar service? >> i think the merchants and the neighborhood are satisfied with the way union street is now there is a nice balance of services. we don't have too many bars, we don't have too many restaurants with the full liquor license. we are getting more small self-service or limited restaurants. i think there is a fear if you open it up so that now all these new restaurants can come in and get a full liquor license and maybe have 51% of their sales be included but selling tator tots and chicken wings, then all of a sudden a bar. you are getting a different picture of union street. the controls have worked. they have been there quite sometime. when you have merchants and neighborhood association agreeing on something i suggest you move forward in that direction. we don't always have agreement on these issues.

we fought really hard to getting a agreement. we would just, you know, like them to go back to the way it was. we don't always catch everything. you know, the whole word inadvertent, we wouldn't have the whole law of unintended consequences if we caught everything the first time things came around. we apologize things came around. certainly isn't our intent to bring unnecessary legislation in front of you. it is something both the neighborhoods and merchants really want. union street commercial district is thriving, doing well. we would appreciate your support with this legislation so we could have the neighborhood commercial district that everyone is supportive of. >> well, thank you. i appreciate it. i guess the only question i have is possibly it could have been allowed by cu, you know. although the ban is probably what seems to be in place. for example the french

laundry, they will have liquor license. they used to only have beer and wine. i have never eaten there. i have heard it is good. there is a movement in the restaurants, everyone the high end ones, for someone to have the ability to get a mixed drink. that is the only thing i want to make sure we don't discourage, really. high-quality restaurants from coming in by having too much process for them to obtain the type of service they need to make it work. >> i think that is a really good point. it is one i will definitely take back the union street association and golden gate valley neighborhood association, because i'm sure these issues will continue to come up. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> commissioner borden. >> i just have a question. does this issue that we found with union street, were there other -- have we looked at some of the other districts impacted to see if other districts have this similar sort of impact? >> we know we went through

the code pretty thoroughly to try to find these. this is just one of those de facto. we didn't understand the intent of the neighborhood, so we haven't found any yet. >> okay. >> it has been out there for quite a while. it seems to work pretty well. >> i'm supportive because we were trying to make it, you know, better alignment. but i was just asking in this specific of a situation if there were other neighborhoods with similar kind of controls in place. i know we also in the last few years have eliminated a lot of those neighborhood controls or reduced because there were controls actually on number of restaurants overall that various neighborhoods have, but this is not affecting that. this is more speaking to -- >> more speaking to the -- >> yes, thanks. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i guess i don't like the direction of some of the conversation going on around these restaurants because all of a sudden we are saying the high-end

classy ones are okay but the ones that serve chicken wings are not. it doesn't sit well with me to get into characterizations of types of restaurants and perhaps by extension the type of people who are going to be there. sorry. >> commissioner antonini. >> i wasn't implying that. though i wasn't the one. i wasn't saying you only want high-end but the concern of the golden gate and merchants and population on union with oversaturation with particular emphasis on establishments that maybe don't do as good a job controlling activities of their patron ons the streets. my analogies were just to point out that, you know, just because you add another restaurant -- full-service restaurant with a liquor license that

includes on-site alcoholic consumption does not mean you will have an increase in, you know, an unacceptable behavior from that. it could be from any type of restaurant, regardless of what they are serving. that was the only thing i was trying to say. sometimes conditional use process gives you the idea to pick and choose and see what kind of impact this establishment would have. i'm fine with this if the other members are. i have a lot of confidence in the supervisor and the work of the golden gate neighborhood association merchants. union street. could always reconsider this at some future time if it doesn't work. >> commissioner moore. >> move to adopt ordinance with modifications suggested by the department. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion is for approval as proposed by staff on that motion. commissioner antonini.

>> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> wu. >> no. >> thank you. motion passes 6-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. * >> commissioners you are on item number five. >> thank you. >> number 2012.0548c for 38th street, conditional use authorization. approximate >> commissioner moore. >> reason why i pulled this off consent is only give her the opportunity to explain the background why this is in front of us. it is somewhat unusual situation but clarifis the record by which this project being on consent could potentially be misunderstood by others. >> thank you. >> if you'd like i will go through a brief presentation to get a little background on this project. elizabeth wadi, planning department staff. this is a conditional use authorization to establish

a temporary 24-space parking lot not to exceed two years at t 38th between market and mission in c3g. as part of the project it will be improved for landscaping and orn mentals, installation of three street trees and elimination of curb cut along 8th street n. terms of public comments the department is not aware of any opposition to project and has not received any additional comments since published. the department has found it unbalanced, necessary and desirable at the location since it will provide off-street parking in a small facility that should not drive substantial traffic or impact traffic movements on adjacent streets. operated as surface parking lot more than 20 years, albeit without required entitlements with no complaints, i will come back in a moment. this is short-term and daily commuter parking. the project meets all other applicable requirements of the planning code. it is based on those finding that the department recommends you approve the

project with conditions. now to go back to the point of the operation of the surface parking lot, we did do some additional research on the history of this project. unfortunately there's not a ton of history how it was able to operator more than 28 years both appropriate entitlements. there are changes regarding the issuing of permits and regulating that. it used to be the san francisco fire department. it is currently the san francisco police department. that change occurred in about 2010. we have no record of any permit being submitted basically for the majority of those 20 years. as soon as we did receive a referral recently and it was brought to the property owner's attention they were operating without proper entitlements they ceased operations and filed for a permit. what went wrong is unclear but there has been a jurisdictional change and our department in general

has been receiving a lot more referrals for surface parking lot. this may be a trend where we are catching things that weren't caught before. thank you. >> it is that small piece of history which i wanted in public record. it should not be looking as if the department all of a sudden is dishing out entitlements with no recourse on penalties but there was no jurisdiction or land use jurisdiction from the department over this lot. that is what i wanted in the public record. i'm in support, as you are, move for approval. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> ms. wadi, just questions. i noticed some of the accompanying material approved -- assumed the project sponsor will clean it up and do landscaping and also be responsible for making sure that there's not trespassing and overnight habitation and things on the lot because,

unfortunately, when there is that kind of activity, if the owner does not request police department remove people who are illegally occupying the space, you know, if you come by and tell the police that they won't do that unless the property owner himself or herself does it. i think that is part and parcel of this, you know, approval that they have to maintain and police the area properly. >> so currently there are conditions of approval dealing with security of the facility or requirements relating to the police department. the other requirements about improving are code requirements. we have worked with them extensively to do. i could defer to project sponsor, if that is their intent. now it is not a condition of approval. >> i just kind of would assume that is when we approve this that you take care of your property in terms of maintaining a secure space. >> sure. one additional note. the property owner is the hold inn who owns the

adjacent properties, so there are different more eyes on this than if there were an absentee landlord. >> that makes sense, that you want your place kept up and free of habitation. the there is a plan to develop this, from what i understand, for something other than a parking lot. >> yes. that i believe is the intent. there is no proposal on the table now; the nice thing about the two-year authorization in limit of the surface parking lots is it forces them to come back in two years or come up with a proposal. >> good. i understand this should be legalized. it is unfortunate people that patronize the orpeeum and strand want areas for parking to get to the theater, for reasons we know about. hopefully that won't be the case and people will feel more comfortable walking a few blocks * to get to the theater. but for the time being it

is an important resource that we have. i move to approve. >> motion is already on the -- >> sorry. >> any other comments? >> commissioners, motion is for approval on that motion. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> hiller. aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner was. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> yes. >> thank you. this passes unanimously. commissioners, you are on item 10. 2012, with the tax regulation code, * planning and police. parking implementation for residential property. >> good afternoon, commissioners. again, anne marie rogers, planning staff. this includes multiple planning codes. just a small portion will amend the planning code. however in general this ordinance is about

simplifying the parking tax. supervisor weiner will describe the ordinance and i will go over proposed amendments just to planning code as well as our department's recommendation on the ordinance. first supervisor weiner. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. * >> thank you. today i'm here to talk about legislation that will -- primary goal is to make it -- to increase compliance among residential property owners with parking tax for those who rent out spots to non-residents. unbeknownst to about all residential property owners that i'm aware of -- and if you talk to the treasurer tax collector's office it appears a widespread lack of knowledge. the parking tax does not

just apply to official commercial parking lots. if you are residential property owner, whether you have a garage and rent that out and a single family home or a ten-unit building and rent seven to tenants and three to non-residents, you have to pay parking tax on anything rented to a non-tenant or non-resident of the building. so people have not generally known about this. in addition we make it incredibly difficult to actually pay the tax. we treat these property owners and all property owners as if they were the fifth emission garage. they have to get fingerprinted, they have to have certain kinds of machinery in place. they have to file monthly. they have to pay a $1,000 annual fee, significantly more than the taxes than they owe and have to get a

bond. even if people may have had an inkling, it is not shocking. it is too much brain damage to even deal with it. so what this would do is for anyone who is renting up to five parking spots somehow connected to a residential property, they would be of course continued to be required to pay the parking tax. the finger-printing and bonding and equipment requirements would be waived, as well as the approximate matdly $1,000 fee. they would file quarterly instead of monthly. the treasurer tax collector would be required to come up with a simple form to fill out. just want to make it very easy, fill out a simple form. every three months you remit the parking tax you owe. in addition, it would create an amnesty so people in a six-month period could

come forward and be legalized. they would pay two years, assuming they would doing it for at eeast two years of back taxes. other taxes would be waived. there would be no penalties or interest. i note there are property owners of varying sizes whom the treasurer tax collector has started to go after them now, sometimes going back 20, 25 years, saying you should be paying this all along. you have to pay all taxes and penalties and interest for people who had no idea they actually had to do it. this would recognize you should be paying some of the back taxes, but we want to, first and foremost, bring people into the system and get them paying and not have people fearful of coming into the system. in addition, and this is the planning code aspect before you, is currently there is a restriction on renting out to a

non-resident who lives more than 1,250 feet from the residence, approximately two and a half blocks. so if i have an extra spot p'd eureka in my xtra spot district, you live at 23rd and diamond, it is technically illegal for me to rent a spot to you. it is problematic for a few reasons. it is completely and utterly unenforcable. even if planning had enforcement staffing to do it, measuring the number of feet, et cetera, i don't see how that is even vaguely enforceable. it also, in my view, violates the city's policy for dis-aggregating parking from housing. we don't want to have parking automatically attached to the housing and we don't want a situation where landlords, for example, are encouraging their tenants to rent. we want to give them the opportunity to have the tenants maybe not have cars

and be able to rent to people who already have cars, be driving them and parking them regardless. in addition, by having that kind of restriction you artificially depress the price of parking. we have a policy as a city -- some people love it, some hate it -- that we want people to pay the full price of parking and not have discounts on parking. if you are renting out a parking spot and it is restricted to this one little area, it is going to be artificially depressed in terms of pricing. i'm not suggesting we completely eliminate the restriction and that anywhere -- anyone -- people from all over the bay area can just drive in and commute and park. that is not what i'm suggesting. this would limit it to city residents. in terms of the commuter problems that we have, people driving in to then park and take muni to downtown, my experience is that tends to be

non-sanfranciscans. i don't have any problem with someone in richmond and the haight. does it happen? i'm not sure but i don't think that is a problem in terms of the commuters and i think it is a non-san francisco issue. i think this will make it easier to enforce if the department has enough staffing to enforce these kinds of things consistently. it will be consistent with the city's policy of disconnecting parking from housing and alleviate the issue of artificially depressing the price of parking. commissioners, i'm happy to answer questions and i would be honored to have your support. >> thank you. >> anne mary rogers.

this would do many things, a small portion is planning code amendment so let's talk a bit about the planning code amendment. they call these accessory parking therefore residential spaces are primary use, mainly to serve the residential use. these spaces are currently limited so they may be leased for not less than one month. as you heard to something who lives within a quarter mile of the existing space. prior to 2008, these would only be rented to people who live in the actually building that had the parking space. this is an issue we have been looking at recently. there are a couple policy issues at play. first is the idea of discouraging the creation of new commuter parking, especially the conversion of residential parking into this commuter parking. this policy would support restricting parking, so those who live within the building or the

neighborhood. the second policy is to separate the cost of parking and housing so those who are seeking housing are not also forced to rent the parking. in 2008 when we looked we talked about what we were aware of at that time, which was an open and flourishing but technically illegal renting of these parking spaces. i'm sure there is still some of this going on. the core of the issue is we wanted to be able to -- it should not be used to encourage the commuter parking. the city's -- so we are kind of looking at how do we get the right balance on this issue. supervisor wiener would change it to allow small amounts of parking that is accessory to residential to be leased to anybody in san francisco, not just the neighborhood. so his change would only affect those buildings that have five parking spaces or

fewer. our reports given that amount of parking leased in any one building would be limited to no more than five spaces. it is unlikely this would create a glut of parking or cause a sitting shift in modes of commuter traffic. since our report was published, it's come to our attention there are new social media companies that may be influencing this dynamic, like circa and park police can unite parkers with parking resources, making it easy to lease small amounts of residential parking as commuter parking. some of these sites encourage and facilitate activities that are illegal such as parking in driveways or leasing the publish right of way in front of their garage where the curb cut is for the driveway. most notefully for planning these sites encourage renting of parking spaces for periods less than